The in-group/out-group dynamics of Nerdrum’s positioning of Kitsch as a reflection of situatedness within contemporary art Willem P. Venter History of Art, North-West University E-mail: [email protected] In his description of the Kitsch movement Odd Nerdrum distinguishes between Kitsch and art. This article investigates the concept of Kitsch as theorized by Nerdrum as a manifestation of situatedness within contemporary art. Nerdrum’s positioning of kitsch as Kitsch, and as the alternative to contemporary art, links with other critics’ views of the significance of kitsch within a post-industrial, modernist and postmodernist society. The techniques employed by Nerdrum in his attempts to re-situate Kitsch are held to reflect the concepts in-group/out-group dynamics, as theorized in social identity theory. I argue that Nerdrum attempts to reposition kitsch – from an out-group to contemporary art – to Kitsch - as an in-group. In this the Kitsch movement can be seen as the manifestation of the need for a change of the situatedness of those who create within the framework of what is considered to be kitsch. Nerdrum’s definition of Kitsch, however, is shown to be an ironically modernist marginalizing force in itself, again situating certain artistic attempts as the out-group. Keywords: in-group, kitsch/Kitsch, Odd Nerdrum, situatedness, the Kitsch Movement, out-group Die in-groep/uit-groep-dinamika van Nerdrum se posisionering van Kitsch as ‘n weerspieëling van gesitueerdheid binne kontemporêre kuns In sy beskrywing van die Kitsch movement onderskei Odd Nerdrum tussen Kitsch en kuns. Hierdie artikel ondersoek die konsep van Kitsch, soos geteoretiseer deur Nerdrum, as ’n manifestasie van gesitueerdheid binne kontemporêre kuns. Nerdrum se posisionering van kitsch as Kitsch, en as die alternatief tot kontemporêre kuns, hou verband met nog kritici se oortuigings van die rol van kitsch binne ’n post-industriële, modernistiese en postmodernistiese samelewing. Die tegnieke wat Nerdrum benut in sy poging om Kitsch te hersitueer word voorgehou as ’n voorbeeld van in-groep/ uit-groep-dinamika, soos geteoretiseer in sosiale identiteitsteorie. Ek argumenteer dat Nerdrum poog om kitsch te herposisioneer - van ’n uit-groep teenoor kontemporêre kuns – na Kitsch – as ’n in- groep. Die Kitsch movement kan hiervolgens gesien word as die manifestasie van die behoefte vir ’n verandering in die gesitueerdheid van diegene wat kuns skep binne die raamwerk wat beskou word as kitsch. Met die definiëring van Kitsch skep Nerdrum egter ’n nuwe raamwerk van ironiese modernistiese marginalisering, waar sekere pogings tot kunsskepping weereens gesitueer word as die uit-groep. Sleutelwoorde: gesitueerdheid, in-groep, kitsch/Kitsch, Odd Nerdrum, die Kitsch Movement, uit- groep ontemporary Norwegian artist Odd Nerdrum (born 1944) declared in 1998 at a retrospective exhibition of his work that he is not an artist but a Kitsch painter (Nerdrum 2011b: 25).1 With this statement Nerdrum demands that his work be evaluated by (what he calls) the C 2 standards of Kitsch (Nerdrum 2011b: 25). Hereby Nerdrum not only situates himself within a certain artistic context, but also allows other artists to situate their work by declaring themselves Kitsch artists. These artists, according to Nerdrum, are the creators of Kitsch – a movement (also referred to as the Kitsch movement) meant to restore that which Nerdrum feels contemporary art has declared to be obsolete. In the traditional conceptualisation of the term, kitsch has in a sense been the antithesis of art (cf. Greenberg 1939; Binkley 2000; Kellman-Chapin 2013). As discussed later the concepts associated with the term have, from the nineteenth century to this day, held negative connotations, although many theorists are re-evaluating the position, importance and definition of kitsch SAJAH, ISSN 0258-3542, volume 30, number 3, 2015: 172-186 (see Boylan 2010; Tedman 2010; Kellman-Chapin 2013). Nerdrum strives in his theoretical, philosophical and artistic definition of Kitsch to reposition the meaning of kitsch, in aspiring for what he calls high Kitsch as a so-called reaction against structuralist modernist assumptions. In his re-conceptualisation of Kitsch (transcending traditional ideas and definitions regarding kitsch), as well as what he calls the standards of Kitsch, Nerdrum focuses on the technical skills of an artist, working in a style that is not new and is always figurative (Nerdrum being a figurative painter himself).3 He states that “the highest mastery is what is worth following, not the times”, emphasizing his obvious preference for technical mastery of figurative artistic depiction instead of constantly changing contemporary ideas in art (Kreyn and Nerdrum 2011: 42). According to Nerdrum’s framing of Kitsch, the movement aims to portray what he calls the eternal: love, death and the sunset, focusing on the sublime experience of the individual (Nerdrum 2011a: 23). Through these physical and intellectual qualities of Kitsch, and in his comments on the subject, Nerdrum presumes to set himself against modernist thought, specifically against its marginalisation of figurative art meant to solicit emotion (Kreyn and Nerdrum 2011: 45). He also claims to react against the persistent view that certain forms of expression carry more weight than others (Nerdrum 2011c: 31). He chooses the word Kitsch as the term for that which he creates in protest against what he believes contemporary art has become. These attempts by Nerdrum to situate his work (and supposedly that of his students and other likeminded creators of cultural products) within a so called superstructure4 which groups certain artistic endeavours together display a certain structuralist approach to defining and separating things or people into groups by order of classification. In order to further investigate and analyse Nerdrum’s Kitsch movement as an example of such a constructed group this article employs social identity theory as a theoretical premise from which one can investigate Nerdrum’s positioning of Kitsch, particularly dealing with in-group and out-group dynamics. By considering these dynamics Nerdrum’s paradoxical protest against modernism can be argued to be an ironic continuation of the modernist paradigm. In order to facilitate this investigation, a discussion of in-group/out-group dynamics in terms of social identity theory and situatedness serves as a framework for analysing Nerdrum’s theorisation of Kitsch, as well as his positioning of Kitsch as the alternative to contemporary art. The origin, use, general understanding of the term and positioning of kitsch in relation to (and within) art is explored and considered from this social identity theory underpinning. Subsequently Odd Nerdrum’s (re)positioning of Kitsch is shown to reflect a conscious attempt at initiating a change in situatedness, by way of in-group/out-group dynamics, of those artists who consider themselves to be part of the Kitsch movement. By considering all these aspects I argue that Nerdrum strategically focuses on certain characteristics of contemporary art and Kitsch in an attempt to improve the position of the new in-group (the Kitsch movement) by reacting against what he considers to be the negative qualities of the out-group (contemporary art). Nerdrum thus seemingly repositions kitsch, formerly the out-group in contemporary art, as the in-group within the Kitsch movement, thereby changing the situatedness of Kitsch and defining contemporary art as the out-group. Nerdrum’s attempts at opposing modernism is, however, shown as folly, as he merely continues to propagate the modernist paradigm through further exclusion of that which does not fit into his newly constructed in-group. 173 Situatedness and social identity theory Situatedness or being situated suggests a fixed, framed notion of place which can be viewed as the modernist binary opposite to fluidity. From an identity framework one could consider Hall’s (2003) investigation of cultural identity from within a cultural theoretical and sociological perspective. Here Hall (2003: 4) states that “identities are constructed within, not outside, discourse”. He continues that one needs to understand identities “as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive formations and practices, by specific enunciative strategies”. This notion of identity being directly linked to a myriad of influences that surround and construct it is reinforced by Lindblom and Ziemke’s (2003: 79) definition of situatedness as meaning that an agent’s or entity’s “behaviour and cognitive processes first and foremost are the outcome of a close coupling between agent and environment”. These statements allude to the idea that one’s situatedness is dependent on several factors external to one’s self. Being aware of these interactions could foster an understanding of how certain elements determine one’s situatedness. On the basis of such awareness, these elements could be approached or positioned in such a way as to change one’s own situatedness in relation to them. When considering Nerdrum’s conceptualisation of Kitsch, it would seem that this approach to consciously change one’s situatedness plays a central role in his theorization of the movement. Another theoretical approach which considers an individual or group’s situatedness as it relates to that which surrounds it is social identity theory. Trepte (2006: 256) defines social identity theory as a social-psychological theory that attempts to explain cognitions